ne of the most frustrating things about searching for accurate
information about stuttering is that there are so many conflicting claims and counter
claims. One thing that is good to remember is that no "research" results should
even be considered to represent "fact" unless they are published in a
peer-reviewed journal. And even then, the methods of the study should be carefully
evaluated to make certain no "confounds" or statistical errors are present. For
example, any research paper that purports to be widely applicable to all stutterers but
uses only volunteers from a stuttering support group should mention this limiting factor,
particularly if it concerns attitudes about stuttering.

"Research" on the success of therapy programs is
particularly suspect. The samples used in these studies may not be a valid. For example,
one such "research" study claims a greater than 90% "success" rate for
one approach, but fails to mention that the sample includes only those who continued to
employ the particular fluency technique taught at the clinic. Of course, the sample
population didn't include those who stopped using the "technique" because it didn't work for
them. . . You get the idea.

Anecdotes are often misleading, of course. For example, the
wonderful actor and gentleman James Earl Jones (pictured above) is commonly thought of as
a "cured" stutterer. He began his recovery when a teacher
encouraged him to read his own poetry aloud from the back of a classroom,
requiring him to use fluency-enhancing techniques that were different than
his "normal" speech. Mr. Jones has managed to develop situational
fluency when he is acting a role, which allows him to speak with more mouth
movement and continuous phonation than is common in his rapid, everyday
speech and (possibly) recreating the fluent situation created by his
childhood teacher (so-called "clinic fluency.") But he still stutters rather noticeably when speaking
spontaneously; something that doesn't hinder his ability to communicate very effectively, it
should be added.

The other thing we've learned is that anecdotal "data"
about stuttering (including much of the information provided on my Web site) should not be
considered universally applicable to individual cases of stuttering. Theories of
stuttering causality (again, including any theories or hypotheses provided or linked to
here) are even more suspect when applied to individual cases. They can be interesting to
consider, and may provide insights, but that's all. And it is important to remember that
many people have essentially recovered their fluency without becoming philosophers.

Using Research or Anecdotes to Predict Success in
Therapy

One occasionally encounters well-meaning,
but ultimately damaging, people who think they're helping people who stutter by relaying
their own story of a miraculous recovery from stuttering and providing step-by-step
instructions or advice. This is the "I did it--so can you" syndrome; or even
worse, the "my (friend, father, brother, etc.) did it--so can you" syndrome.
(These might even be worse than the "I can't do it--and neither can you"
syndrome.) It takes considerable discipline for people who have essentially regained
fluency to remember exactly what it was like to stutter severely and to respect the fact
that the process of recovery has its own time scale, logic, and degree of fluency for
different individuals. One can't blame recovered stutterers for their enthusiasm. But one
can hope that people who lack this discipline won't pass themselves off as speech
therapists.

There are many varieties of stuttering, including some rare cases
that appear to be almost entirely psychological in nature. There are also cases of
stuttering--typically
of sudden onset and occurring in late childhood or adulthood--that
appear to be triggered by physical or mental trauma,
or by a very slow neuro-psychological development process. There are also many degrees of severity
of stuttering of all types. Given this variety, it is just not constructive for a
moderate-to-severe, developmental "garden variety" stutterer to measure his own
progress by the achievements of others; who may come from these other populations.

There are a few people around (Nick Tunbridge, author of The Stutterer's Survival
Guide comes to mind), who have excellent advice for stutterers who have
learned so-called "fluency techniques" and want to dramatically improve their
fluency. People with useful advice like Nick don't try to claim that everyone can (or
should) do exactly what they're done, or claim that stuttering can be cured by
"turning off a switch in your head" or faking an accent, or changing your
attitude toward stuttering, or "quitting" stuttering like smoking or
thumb-sucking, or just by changing the way you think.

Finally, any therapy approach that relies for its success on the
accuracy of a particular theory of stuttering or a single
technique or "trick" should be examined very carefully. Therapy
is a healing art and should be based on good science. But most approaches don't succeed
through strict adherence to a particular academic theory or hypothesis. There is a growing
practical and experiential basis for knowing what works in stuttering therapy. One of
these days, research may show us why some things work for some people and not for others
and why some people appear to have chronic, persistence, irresolvable stuttering no matter
how hard they work or what they do or try.